" and unintelligible profusion in the distribution of nerves, of intri

cacy without meaning, of an expenditure of resources without a " parallel in the other works of nature. But no sinall part of this “ confusion is now made clear; what seemed to be profusion, has s been shown to be a provision equally wise and economical for the “perfect performance and combination of the most important and “ distinguishing functions of living creatures." --P. 448.

After the exposition which this article contains of the principles of 'a sound physiology of the nervous system, Mr - Jeffrey will pass the boundaries of all ordinary inconsistency if he shall, in future, admit any condemnation, or even disrespectful representation of Phrenology to be inserted in his pages. It is, substantially, a powerful pleading in favour of the science; and it is impossible for any man, who acquiesces in the truth of the principles recommended by this able and enlightened contributor to the dinburgh Review, to call in question the fundamental principles of Phrenology. We are obliged, however, to add, that the article takes no notice of the labours of Drs Gall and Spurzheim,--an omission 'which, if voluntary on the part of the author, can tend only to the disparagement of his own reputation.

ARTICLE XVI.

THE LONDON ENCYCLOPÆDIA, PART 33, ARTICLE

PHRENOLOGY.

Every person who sets about writing on any subject ought to ask himself before he begins, what is the object to be attained by the book or article in contemplation? This question is of so much importance, that, frequently, the same work

may be pronounced good or bad according to the view which the reader may adopt of its object. The article be. foré us affords a striking illustration of this proposition. If the proper object of it be to give a view of the arguments for and against the science, then it is a capital production ; it fur

nishes long quotations from the writings of the opponents, and even gleans the gossiping anecdotes that have been privately circulated against Phrenology ; -while, at the same time, it gives equally long extracts in answer from the writings of Drs Gall and Spurzheim, Dr Elliotson, and Mr Chenevix. These extracts are judiciously and impartially selected; the opponents are presented in their best aspect; and yet no disparagement is done to the advocates, for they are allowed to speak with equal efficacy. The author, moreover, informs us, that, in 1815, he was himself inimical to the science, and wrote against it in the Eclectic Review, and that now his leanings are rather in its favour. He still limits his

approval, but at the same time acquits Phrenology of immoral tendency. This, in short, is an excellent summary of the mere controversy. *, But, on the other hand, if the object of such an article ought to be to lay a distinct account of Phrenology itself before the readers of the Encyclopædia, so that any one of its subscribers resident in a remote county of England, or in the colonies, who had read in reviews and newspapers many discussions about it, but who, in consequence of not enjoying access to extensive works or lectures on the subject, shoựld desire to know something of the science itself, that he might form his own opinion of its merits; if, we say, it be the proper object of the article in the Encyclopædia to inform such a man, then the present is almost a total failure. It occupies 14 large pages, handsomely printed with double columns; and of all this space only one column and a quarter are devoted to the history of the science, and two columns and a half to the organs and their functions; even of these, one column is occupied with Dr Gall's German names, and Dr Spurzheim's reasons for inventing English ones with long and unusual terminations. The consequence is, that a reader who has been wearied to death with the controversy, who at length wishes to know what the debate has been about, and goes to this work for information, will find him

self grievously disappointed. He will meet with the controversialists in their full ardour, and be furnished with the most formidable arguments and assertions pro-et con; but he will obtain no satisfactory representation of Phrenology itself.

We very seriously regret this error of the author, for such it certainly appears to us to be. If he would place himself for a moment in the circumstances of his readers, it is probable that he would agree in our opinion. The decision of the abstract question of true or false, cannot be of very great interest to a man who is profoundly ignorant of what Phrenology is; and, on the other hand, every sensible person, if informed distinctly about the subject itself, will be more pleased with forming his own opinion, than by adopting that of any editor, however able and conscientious. It appears very difficult for most men to conceive, that it is of no very great moment to the world at large whether they as individuals think one way or another on any great topic of public discussion. On the contrary, each editor appears to imagine that his voice is to decide the question, and he introduces his opinion with as much solemnity, and gives it as many qualifications, as if he were speaking from a tribunal of absolute wisdom. The author before us is not altogether free from this imputation; he is too anxious about what shall be thought of himself for treating Phrenology with candour, and he is so much occupied with furnishing reasons for his decision, that he throws into the shade the substantial facts of the cause. With every respect for his talents and information, we can assure him from observation, that by professing the most unbounded belief, or the most thorough contempt, he could not have exerted half so much influence over the minds of his readers as he would have done, if he had only abridged one of the works which treat of the science, and reversed the distribution of his columns; namely, given to the subject twelve pages, and to the controversy two; and

; then left each individual to embrace or reject the theory according to the dictates of his own judgment.

We regret also that he has given currency to Mr Stone's misrepresentations in point of fact, without taking the trouble to refute them; for example, on p. 265 we read," Sir “ William Hamilton, in a lecture at the Edinburgh University, ex“hibited the open crania belonging to that museum, with a num“ber of other specimens, and thereby demonstrated that these si"puses, which are very unequal in their extent and depth, affect

frequently as many and often more than one-third of the princi“pal phrenological organs.” Now, it is matter of notorious fact, known to two or three hundred persons who attended Sir William Hamilton's lecture, and it is explicitly printed in the Phrenological Journal, vol. IV. article III., that the skulls exhibited by Sir W. were not sawn open ; and, on p. 386 of that volume, a letter appears from Mr Combe to Sir W. in these words :-“ Many thanks for your polite atten

“ tion about the skulls ;" [Sir William offered Mr C. the use of the college collection for his lecture ;] “but I am under the necessity “ of mentioning, that unless I am permitted to saw open at least

a dozen of them, not selected on account of evident peculiarities, “ but taken at random, so as to afford a fair average, I shall be

obliged to decline admitting them as evidence.” Sir William in answer said :-" The offer of being allowed to open any “ three skulls at your own choice, in order to manifest, not “ to verify, my measurements, is surely as good as twenty.” Mr Combe replied :-“I am really very much obliged by “ the great trouble you have taken ; but, as I consider sawing open " the only way to settle at once the questions of parallelism and ex“ tent of sinus, I am reluctantly obliged to forego the advantages of “ your offer, since Professor Jameson will not permit the opening to o take place.”

Farther, in the article in question, we find Mr Stone's statement, that Mr Syme's collection of open skulls, used by Mr Combe in his lecture in answer to Sir William Hamilton, consisted of only two and a half, repeated, without the contradiction given by Mr Syme, that it consisted of eight. The editor, no doubt, within a parenthesis, expresses his own belief, that Mr Stone in this particular must be in era ror; but a very little inquiry would have enabled him distinctly to state the extent of the misrepresentation.

He quotes also Mr Stone's assertion :-“That, notwith

:

“ standing the great outcry that has been raised of the many eri“ dences in favour of Phrenology, notwithstanding the zeal of its “ advocates, and their united perseverance, they have in this coun“ try only been enabled to concentrate within the pages of their “ leading works, (the Phrenological Transactions and Journal,) "twenty-eight facts in support of their thirty-five organs ;” and he gives no direct contradiction to this flagrant absurdity.

We advert to these particulars only with the view of pointing out to future editors how much better they will ex-, ecute their duty to their readers by giving an accurate account of Phrenology itself, than by encumbering their pages with controversial passages about it, which convey no idea of the subject, are grossly inaccurate, and must necessarily sink into oblivion whenever the question is determined either the one way or the other.

On the 28th ult. the Phrenological Society of Kilmarnock opened their monthly meetings for the season with a dinner in compliment to Mr Roger of the Turf Inn, one of their members, who has generously accommodated the Society since its formation with a place of meeting for the ordinary transaction of business. The Rev. George Lawson, president of the Society, in the chair, and the Rev. Adam Brown, the vice-president, croupier. On the cloth being removed, the Rev. Chairman

the usual public toasts; and, in coming more particularly to the business of the evening, he stated, in a short speech, that he had first been induced to attend to Phrenology, not so much from a thorough conviction of its truth, as from his being unable to see in it any thing hostile to religion or